PRESIDENT UPLETA MUNICIPALITY Vs. RAMESH GOPALBHAI KAPUPARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted, Mr. D.H. Vaghela appears and waives service of notice of admission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This appeal is filed against mandatory interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1599 of 1998 on March 19, 1998. That petition was filed by the respondent - original petitioner No. 1 being one of the employees of Upaleta Municipality and No. 2 as office leader of trade Union Registered under the Trade Union Act. The case of the petitioners was that they were working with the Municipality on permanent basis. On extraneous considerations and with malafide motive and without authority of law, their services came to be terminated in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of unfair labour practice and victimisation. They, therefore, approached the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. In the Industrial Tribunal, the matter was compromised between the parties and a consent award was passed. In spite of the award, Appellant No. 1, new President of the Municipality illegally terminated their services by passing the impugned order on 7th February, 1998, which was illegal and contrary to law. The petitioners, therefore, filed Regular Civil Suit Nos. 13 to 37 of 1998 on February 9, 1998. The suits, however, came to be dismissed on February 18, 1998 by the learned Civil Judge, (S.D.), Upaleta on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. They, therefore, approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 1599 of 1998 on March 4,1998. The Municipality had filed a Caveat and it appeared in the matter. On 19th March, 1998, the learned Single Judge issued Rule and granted mandatory injunction directing the Municipality to reinstate the petitioners. The operative part of the order reads thus: "By way of interim order, the respondent Municipality is directed to reinstate the concerned workmen in this petition, whose services have been terminated without following the procedure of law, within a week from to day, which if course, is subject to the rights and contentions of the respondent Municipality to challenge the award passed by the Tribunal before the higher forum and the appropriate orders that may be obtained by it.

(3.) The Chief Officer of the Municipality to submit report before this Court about the compliance S.O. to 27th March, 1997, DS permitted. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against that order. We have heard both the parties. Time was also granted to file further affidavit to the parties and with consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard. 3. The case of the appellant-Municipality was that all the petitioners came to be appointed only in 1997 and that too, without following proper procedure of law and without complying with the Rules for recruitment and conditions of service of Employees of appellant Municipality. It was alleged that they had not completed 240 days in a year and were not entitled to regularisation. It was further alleged that almost all the employees were related either to past President or to Councillors and in flagrant violation of Rules and by way of back door entry, they came to be appointed. It is asserted that since the recruitment was contrary to law and without considering financial conditions of the appellant Municipality they were apointed, a special general meeting was called on November 21, 1997 for considering the question of removal of workmen. By a resolution No. 30, it was resolved that the employees recruited after July 29, 1997 be removed with effect from November 21, 1997 and authority was given to the President for taking appropriate action in that regard, it is alleged that though such resolution was passed the then President of the Municipality did not take action.